E8500 the CPU to get in January.... :D

Status
Not open for further replies.
4.7GHz on air is pretty good, and that cooler wasnt the best im guessing thermal take are not the best.
 
hmmm.... I wonder if that clock speed really can compensate for the lack of cores... maybe I won't wait for the Q9450...

Could this thing outpace the Q6600? That's all I'm really concerned about, it's got 2MB less of L2 cache and 2 less cores...
 
hmmm.... I wonder if that clock speed really can compensate for the lack of cores... maybe I won't wait for the Q9450...

Could this thing outpace the Q6600? That's all I'm really concerned about, it's got 2MB less of L2 cache and 2 less cores...

It actually has 1mb MORE cache per core than the q6600.....

As for outpacing it though, I kind of doubt it. I'd rather spend money on a nice clocking 4ghz quad core
 
in the future.. this will be like the e6850 is today.. .people want the e6850 or the q6600, but it'll be e8500 or q9300...
 
why spend the same amount for a new dual core when you can get the q6600? smaller die? how much will the new quads launch at? more than planned i bet as the current phenoms are likely nil competition for them.
what's the die size on nehalem? 32nm? thats the one that will be a sick-o chip if they get that MC right.
 
I agree.. thats what we say to the n00bs who want an e6850 when theres a q6600... for cheaper..
 
I don't think a few things add up on the test that were shown. On one test it shows 4C for cpu temp on air? Where are the testing, a walk in freezer? Also when at 4.7MHz, they do not show any cpu temp. Only testing shown with 3DMark is done at 4.4MHz. Riva Tuner they show the settings for 2D, not 3D. All seems a bit fishy. I would not get your hopes up to much until further testing is done. I will stick with my Q6600.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom